Bush made Osama deal with Musharraf (not to catch him)

[cphilip]

Originally posted by impostal22


sorry for the misunderstanding. i meant just show me a news site that you think is unbiased, not one that has an unbiased report of this story. i'm just curious what news site you think is unbiased.

I don't think any of them are. Not sure where you got the idea "I" did. But look back and you will see I did not proclaim any to be. You inferred that yours was.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by cphilip


I don't think any of them are. Not sure where you got the idea "I" did. But look back and you will see I did not proclaim any to be. You inferred that yours was.

i never proclaimed mine to be unbiased. if inferring it means posting an article about it and extrapolating from it, then i guess you're right. but if we all know that there is no such thing as an unbiased news site, it is kind of redundant to reply to my post with "the guardian is biased." by stating that my source is biased, you are inferring that i could have come up with an unbiased source, which we both agreed is impossible. so we go back to the original post, knowing that the source, like all sources, is biased.

[cphilip]

In that respect that one is particulary biased. Always has been. Some are more so than others I will grant you that. Some are "fairly" credible but always biased. That one ain't even near middle or the road journalism at all in my opinion. No sources not back up no nothing! They just present a theory and run with it. Its so far left it's off the scale of left. And again that is old stuff there. Not anything new at all. But thats the way it was presented here was as if it was a revelation and as if it was "Announced" or something. And it was indeed presented as if its was fact. A quick read reveals NO AUTHORIZED CREDIBLE SOURCE at all. Its fiction at best.

I know we are not going into Pakistan if we can help it. And everyone knows there has been negotiations to get Pakistan to help by doing it themselves. And there is some indication they are trying. But even they don't control that bad arse land up there. If he is hiding there and if anyone knows it then its the local tribes and yes they would hide him. Even if they didn't like him. Thats thier way. One can assume Bush and Pakistan have agreed on some things in that respect. They would have too. But one can also assume neither of them thinks he is so important as to jeaprodize cooperation between the US and Pakistan and India as well. He is not. If he has to stay over there and hide out he is about as equaly ineffective as if he were dead. If he wished to be effective he would have to come out at some point to do it. That area is not a good place to operate from.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by cphilip
In that respect that one is particulary biased. Always has been. Some are more so than others I will grant you that. Some are "fairly" credible but always biased. That one ain't even near middle or the road journalism at all in my opinion. No sources not back up no nothing! They just present a theory and run with it. Its so far left it's off the scale of left. And again that is old stuff there. Not anything new at all. But thats the way it was presented here was as if it was a revelation and as if it was "Announced" or something. And it was indeed presented as if its was fact. A quick read reveals NO AUTHORIZED CREDIBLE SOURCE at all. Its fiction at best.

forgetting that it's the guardian...the informant is a middle eastern analyst frequently guest speaking on fox news etc, who is widely appreciated as being a very accurate and extremely credible source.

[cphilip]

And has since been debunked and the story debunked.

The Guardian is little more than a tabloid rag. Often writing incredible stories to sell papers. They have now coined the Phrase "Guardian Journalism" to be synomymous with exagerated and misconnected conclusion! Its true!

Here is an example of a story written about that kind of slant that is Gaurdian to a T. Its rightest but the base of this story IS TRUE!





Heres a few examples of the other side of the coin.

Here is a claim that they completely fabricateda story and then attacked to protect it from being revieled http://www.guardianlies.com/Contents.html

Here the Guardian attacks another liberal publication and distorts the truth. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2003...ournalism.html

There is TONS of this kind of stuff about the Guardian. Most people read it like they would a Gossip Paper. Some believe it and swear by it. But often it's very exagerated non confirmed rumor mongering. And they do not like to be proven wrong. They seem to have an issue with honesty and never retract anything. They prefer to attack the person revealing thier lies. Thats honest journalism? Not in my book. I realise many are no better. But this one takes on a whole new tactic. Not just to make incredible stories wether they are true or not. But to then squash anyone that tries to prove they lied. Not thats rather odd and scary.

[shartley]

[AssassN]

Originally posted by shartley

Why? Because we are so insanely smrt and intalligetn?

[shartley]

Originally posted by AssassN


Why? Because we are so insanely smrt and intalligetn?

LOL Yeah... that is exactly it!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by cphilip
Not so. You brought it here and proclaimed it as fact. You did that. Not me. I challenged it is all. But you gave it credibility and tried to move forth without challenge. It did not happen.

I second this notion!!!!!

Now as to why this story is utter crap. India does not like Pakistan, and visa versa. They have fought 3 wars and are struggling with the Kashmir dispute. Why would a Pakistani General tell the press of their worst enemy a state secret that could destabilize his own nation.

Learn your history before you give things like this credence.

[taylor492]

Yeah everyone knows that they're well know for their investigative reporting

[Restola]

lol the Times of India?

You have to be kidding...

p8nt, you look like a fool.

[AssassN]

Originally posted by Restola
lol the Times of India?

You have to be kidding...

p8nt, you look like a fool.

I always look like a fool!